Disney Refused Invitation From Senator Feinstein To Meet With Tech Companies Over PIPA/SOPA

from the all-stakeholders? dept

We've been pointing out for months that the entertainment industry -- who more or less wrote SOPA & PIPA -- has done everything it can to deny both the tech industry and consumers any seat at the table. Many of us have asked to take part, or suggested that the backers of SOPA & PIPA open up the process -- as Senator Wyden and Rep. Issa did with their OPEN Act -- allowing the public to comment on it, suggest specific changes, and actually have a real debate on the bill, rather than handling it all in the back room. Multiple times, MPAA boss Chris Dodd has suggested that Hollywood is more than happy to sit down with folks in Silicon Valley to talk over the issues related to the bill -- though, when a bunch of us offered to do just that, somehow Dodd wasn't so welcoming.

Turns out he wasn't the only one. California Senator Dianne Feinstein -- despite coming a bit late to the game in recognizing the concerns of the tech industry -- has been trying to make up for lost time by trying to "broker a peace" between the North and the South. We'd been hearing some rumors that Feinstein had actually been trying to set up just such a meeting -- given her role covering both Silicon Valley and Hollywood -- but that Hollywood was blocking all attempts, and it appears that's now been confirmed by reporter Zach Carter:

After that story ran, Feinstein attempted to broker a compromise, calling both tech companies and film studios.

Walt Disney Co. President and CEO Bob Iger declined the invitation on behalf of content providers. "Hollywood did not feel that a meeting with Silicon Valley would be productive at this time," said a spokesperson. The meeting took place with only tech companies present. Feinstein, once a reliable vote for the existing version of Protect IP, is now working hard to amend the bill, according to Senate Democratic aides.

Basically, this claim of wanting a bill that works for everyone is all a facade that Hollywood puts up in order to pretend that it's open to input on these bills when it's clearly not. At all. Instead, as has been the case all along, the MPAA and the big Hollywood studios have arrogantly believed that they wrote the bill, they have the votes, so why should they waste time on petty little things like real discussions with real experts? When the actual opportunity -- at the behest of a US Senator no less -- to meet with the tech community came along, the Hollywood guys flat out ignored it and said they weren't interested. If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about how the industry views this bill, it's time to start paying closer attention.

Reader Comments

Re:

Ok, first 2 paragraphs are about concerns of some editors including this one:

"My main concern is that it puts the organization in the role of advocacy, and that's a slippery slope," said editor Robert Lawton, a Michigan computer consultant who would prefer that the encyclopedia stick to being a neutral repository of knowledge. "Before we know it, we're blacked out because we want to save the whales."

Which I agree can be a valid concern. Once you start advocating, at some point you have to know where that line begins and ends.

Of course after these first two paragraphs, there's about 101-2 paragraphs explaining what Wikipedia is doing and why it feels it is necessary. Then another paragraphs of 2 about a few more concerns from editors.

I see no mention of losing editors, much less losing them in droves, over this bill. There is a little blurb in the last paragraph about a roughly 10% decline in contribution over the last YEAR, but none of that decrease is even suggested to come from this protest.

So I see ONE story, carried by large number of mainstream media outlets. What I don't see, in that ONE story, is any mention of Wikipedia actually losing ANY editors because of this blakcout (although I do not doubt they will indeed lose some because of this) much less any significant numbers.

Unless of course, you wish to suggest the decline of roughly 10% in contributors over the course of a whole years is somehow all directly related to an event announced only a few days ago.